SYED
ASIFUDDIN VSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
CITATION: 2005 CriLJ 4314
COURT: Andhra Pradesh High
Court
BENCH: V Rao
FACTS:
Reliance Infocomm Ltd., as part of the Dhirubhai
Ambani Pioneer initiative, has launched an offer in which the business would
sell a third-generation digital handset for three years, Rs. 10,500
and Rs. 3,350 will be paid in addition.. This plan drew a lot of attention
since it caused other service providers to lose a lot of money, and it paved
the path for other service providers to profit from illegal acts.
When staff members of TATA Indicom, the petitioner,
were in the store that initially belonged to the second subscribers, the CDMA
digital phones were hacked and tampered with fraudulently. Even by displaying
superior tariff options, the second respondent's clients were enticed. Thus,
according to the preceding terms and conditions the phone belonged to the
second responder and the customer for three years.
The respondent filed a FIR against the petitioner on
May 31, 2003, alleging violations of sections 102B, 409, and 420 of the Indian
Penal Code (IPC), 1860, Section 63 of the Copyright Act, and Section 65 of the
Information and Technology Act, 2000. TATA Indicom employees filed two
petitions in 2005, asking for the same remedies that the respondent had
requested.
ISSUES:
§ Can
the court order the inquiry for violations under Sections 120B, 409, and 420 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to be halted?
§ Will tampering with the mobile identifying
number, which was linked with the ESN and belonging to the reliance device, be
considered modifying the computer source code by a TATA Indicom employee?
§ Is a phone handset a "computer" as
defined by Section 2(1)(i) of the IT Act?
HELD:
· According
to Section 2(1)(i) of the IT Act, a "computer" is any electronic,
magnetic, optical, or other high-speed data processing device or system that
performs logical, arithmetic, and memory functions through manipulations of
electronic, magnetic, or optical impulses, as well as all input, output,
processing, storage, computer software, or communication facilities that are
connected or related to the computer in a computer system or computer network.
As a result, a telephone handset falls within the definition of
"computer" as stated in Section 2(1)(i) of the IT Act.
· Changing
the ESN allows other service providers, such as TATA Indicomm, to use
previously exclusive devices. As a
result, changing an ESN is a violation of Section 65 of the IT Act, because
every service provider must keep track of its own SID code and assign a unique
number to each instrument used to access the services. As a result, the
applicants' convictions cannot be invalidated under Section 65 of the
Information Technology Act.
The criminal petition filed under Section 63 of the
Copyright Act and Section 65 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 was
dismissed by the Hon'ble Court of Andhra Pradesh, which also invalidated the
charges filed under Sections 120B, 409, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The
court ordered the police to submit an inquiry report to the Metropolitan
Magistrate within three months of receiving the judgment.
CONCLUSION:
After hearing the views of both the petitioner and
the respondent, the court decided to deal with the problems separately and then
deal with the prosecution case on the basis of prima facie evidence. Thus, when
the ESN modified the offence under Sec 65 of the IT Act, the fact that every
service provider, such as Respondent No. 2, has to retain its own SID code and
also assigns a customer unique number to an instrument used to make use of the
services given, is attracted prima facie. The notion that infringement cannot
be committed because there is no law requiring the preservation of computer
source code is unfounded. Furthermore, the retention of computer source code by
a mobile phone operator is a matter of evidence. Respondent 2 is the one who
maintains the source code in this case. As a result, the allegations
brought against the petitioners under
the abovementioned Section are true.
PRECEDENT:
1. STATE
OF WEST BENGAL V. SWAPAN KUMAR
2. STATE
OF HARYANA V. BHAJAN LAL
3. R.P.
KAPOOR V. STATE OF PUNJAB
4. STATE
OF TAMIL NADU V. THIRUKKURAL PERMAL
0 Comments